California’s newest housing law: Abolishing some parking mandates

Newsom is doing everything he can, as well as the Democrats, to keep you at home.  Now they are allowing the elimination of parking near public transit.  In Simi Valley, we have a train station, public transit—with a large parking lot.  Under the new rules, they can take away the parking lot.  Of course, by doing so, eliminating many people who might ride the train into Los Angeles or Santa Barbara.

Among the bills he signed almost immediately: A proposal to ban cities from requiring new developments near public transit to set aside space specifically for parking. 

  • Newsom: “Reducing housing costs for everyday Californians and eliminating emissions from cars: That’s what we call a win-win.”

Of course, under these rules families will not be able to live in housing near transit—since they will need a car to go to work, church, church, visit family and leave the area.  Literally, Newsom and the Democrats are using the lack of parking as a way to force folks to leave the unlivable State of California.

WhatMatters

California’s newest housing law: Abolishing some parking mandates

Ben Christopher, What Matters,  9/22/22  

Gov. Gavin Newsom has some catching up to do. 

On Thursday, the governor returned to California after three days in New York City spent touting his administration’s climate policy achievements and coming up with novel insults for his critics and political opponents. On his desk: a stack of roughly 650 bills awaiting his signature or veto before a constitutionally-mandated deadline one week from today.

Among the bills he signed almost immediately: A proposal to ban cities from requiring new developments near public transit to set aside space specifically for parking. 

  • Newsom: “Reducing housing costs for everyday Californians and eliminating emissions from cars: That’s what we call a win-win.”

For supporters of the bill, authored by Assemblymember Laura Friedman, a Burbank Democrat, it was a fitting conclusion to the governor’s week of climate advocacy. Advocates argue that the measure will allow for denser, less car-dependent homes and businesses, while also cutting the price tag of building them. 

But like any bill that touches on housing policy, local control or car-culture — or in this case all three at once — the debate drew strange coalitions to either side.

Friedman’s bill isn’t the most monumental housing proposal in recent California memory. But it’s a part of a distinct trend as the housing affordability crisis gets more attention. This year the governor also signed a bill allowing for the conversion of empty storefronts into apartments. Last year, Newsom green-lighted the construction of duplexes in most of the state’s neighborhoods. That followed a series of new laws making it easier for homeowners to build granny flats.  

No wonder some YIMBYs are declaring a tentative kind of victory. In California politics, to be pro-housing now seems to be the mainstream position

Keep tabs on the controversial and consequential legislation that Newsom has signed so far — and measures he has yet to decide — with CalMatters’ 2022 bill tracker.

About Stephen Frank

Stephen Frank is the publisher and editor of California Political News and Views. He speaks all over California and appears as a guest on several radio shows each week. He has also served as a guest host on radio talk shows. He is a fulltime political consultant.

Comments

  1. Cars Are Basic, Inc. stated clearly that the moves by Sacramento was about “population control” in the finest tradition of dictators.

    Who passed the first CEQA law? Democrats.

    CEAQ DEMANDED that nay construction could not interfere with street travel and cause congestion.

    Sacramento CHANGED CEQA about a decade ago to state that “high density” street congestion and parking needs could NOT STOP high density infill. Getting it? When the Democrats figured out they want “Pack’m & Stack’m” building. When they figure out that people wanting their cars and parking would make density infill massive and destructive to the environment they changed it.

    The voters have been had. The voters have been told this is good for you, regardless of the issue that the freedom of travel, the choice of travel is being intentionally taken from residents.

    The problem of the Democrats is they want to control where you live, how you live, how you travel (gov. owned) and better yet how you can evacuate in emergency. (there will never be enough buses to evacuate …. did someone mention the San Fernando Valley Earthquake?

    Need help in traffic issues. Need an advocate? Contact CarsAreBasic.org

Speak Your Mind

*